Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> At 8:45 PM +0200 8/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >>>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Nope -- we don't have bigints. :) >>> >>>Pardon, sir? > >> We've got the big number code, but I don't see much reason to >> distinguish between integers and non-integers at this level -- the >> only difference is exponent twiddling. > > Ah, ok. BigInt as a degenerated BigNum. I still prefer the notion that > adding or multiplying to integers give a BigInt on overflow. > > While at num vs int: do we automatically downgrade to int again? > > 6.0/2.0 = 3.0 or 3 ?
No. Once a real, always a real. I see no harm in collapsing appropriate rationals to ints mind...
